Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehausen () gmail com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
> > > > The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
> > > > sure.
> > >
> > > However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
> > > that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
> > > that.
> > Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?
>
> Obligated by the FCC license

Hi Larry, Roy:

BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?